Israeli authorities denied that they used white phosphorus in their military operations in Gaza and Lebanon.
Seems like they're lying. All of that taken together seems like pretty damning evidence that they do use white phosphorous shells.
White phosphorus is not considered a chemical weapon because it operates primarily by heat and flame rather than toxicity, making it an incendiary weapon. Its use is governed by Protocol III of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW). Lebanon acceded to the protocol in 2017, but Israel has not.
Oh. So they're not bound by the treaty not to use it.
Even better since Lebanon isn’t involved here. It’s the terrorist organization Hezbollah that is. Since they’re terrorists rather than a country, they’re not signed on to this either.
For those wondering. This substance is regulated by the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), third protocol.
One attack on the town of Dhayra on 16 October must be investigated as a war crime because it was an indiscriminate attack that injured at least nine civilians and damaged civilian objects
The highlight is mine but points out their legal objection here. One may refer to Article II of Protocol III, sections 2 and 3.
It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
Per Article II section 3, it would be illegal for an indiscriminate attack that did not take all feasible precautions to limit the incendiary effect to military objectives.
As for anyone wondering, the use of white phosphorus is not a violation per Article I (1)(b)(i).
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems
Of which white phosphorus falls into when it is not used solely for it's incendiary effects. Again, that is if Israel was justifiably using the substance.
So all of this is to say, that while Amnesty International does indeed bring up a valid point. The international law gives enough wiggle room for Israel to avoid consequences.
“International Law” is the funniest concept in the world, because a “law” only has the strength of its enforcement, and who’s going to actually make Israel follow a rule?
You would think so. But this is Israel we’re talking about. They don’t get sanctioned. If this was Iran, or Russia, then sure. But Israel? They were only defending themselves. Or whatever excuse is used to justify anything they do against international law.
Idk about OP but I’ve been ashamed of my country since at least 2016 2001 1990 August 6, 1945 the 17th century when “we” decided that land settled by Native Americans somehow belonged to us. I wasn’t alive for most of that time but I guarantee my country has done shameful things for muuuch longer than 24 days.
little clarification here - humanity isnt native to anywhere other than Africa. the people that were in the American continents prior to the arrival of Europeans might not have taken boats to get there - though some clearly did as there were multiple waves of settlement over a few thousand years.
if their ancestors walked over the land bridge during the ice age and that somehow qualifies them as natives, then what about the ones whose ancestors took a boat across where the land bridge used to be and sailed down the coast? if they qualify, then why dont the people whose European ancestors took boats qualify as native? is it because the last round of people had vastly superior technology? because we speak the same languages they did? because we’re the same ethnicity they were? is this a racism argument? I didnt get that memo.
is this a branch of the “noble savage” theory? there was a lot of war between various tribes in North America - generational warfare usually, where one tribe would traditionally raid another for resources or for women. this is well documented and had been occurring for as long as anyone could remember - long, long before the reintroduction of the horse into North America.
I think it’s mostly the uther lack of consideration for the locals at the time. Europeans went there with the explicit aim to “conquer” and loot a continent that was inhabited by dozens if not hundreds of societies. They went there, killed, raped and enslaved hundreds of thousands of people. Can’t imagine to hear anyone defend that kind of behavior.
I’d say you’re native if when you arrive, there’s not already people living there. They walked the land bridge, found no other humans and then settled. Europeans sailed across the sea and found the native Americans and then continued to slaughter and pillage them for their own gain.
I’m not even sure how you’re comparing the 2 events.
But these groups and people weren't the same people as the ones that walked across the land bridge. The cultures had long since diverged and were different. Wars had been fought. Whole groups died or merged. And if you go back a little further, they are all closely related. I don't think the point is that the slaughtering and pillaging was OK. It is that you cannot have a good faith argument on fixing current problems by trying to focus only on arbitrary time periods to claim certain privileges. I am very much in favor of doing more to make the lives of the native americans better, but I also will not make the argument that descendants of Europeans or Africans have no claim to the land there either. Because to do so is not in good faith and just ignores reality. Any time period you pick to decide who has a claim to a place is arbitrary. We cannot change the past. We can only change the future (but we are limited by the confines of the present).
If you believe the reports coming out of the Hamas aligned side, Israel has not once hit a legitimate military target. They were all civilians. Do you remember that refugee camp they hit yesterday? You know, the one with all the apartment buildings where Hamas leadership suspiciously died at the exact same time. That was all civilians.
Arab states in the immediate vicinity cannot fathom that Israel could be any more trustworthy than their own governments despite consistency on the Israeli side. To be honest, after having seen how it works myself, I don’t believe anything coming out of that region but those channels coming out of the Israeli state itself. I do not understand why people take any of the reports of the Hamas or aligned organizations at face value but they do.
State or no state, Hamas was legitimately elected by the people of Palestine. They committed a horrendous attack against Israel justifying a defensive war. War is fucking ugly. There’s no way around it without risking your own forces. This is not genocide as they are targeting military targets despite the narrative. Collateral damage is not inherently a war crime and people should learn what that means. Deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime. White phosphorous is only a war crime if they are signatory to the treaty banning its use which they are not nor are the United States or Russia.
The is a massive information war going on right now trying to pull public opinion to one side or the other and almost nothing can truly be trusted unless it comes from a primary source and even then they should be assessed for trustworthiness based on evidence and past performance.
This is also intended to take our attention away from Russia and Ukraine; just saying.
Define genocide then detail with trustworthy sources why this meets it.
I’m tired of people pontificating that this is genocide who cannot even define what genocide is. The other side are those that can define genocide but fully trust Hamas sources while distrusting Western sources.
The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law. Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:
A mental element: the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”; and
A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
isnt that’s hamas’s goal though? they want to drive Israeli into the sea and create a new arab caliphate. not going to get there without massive genocide.
There UN source simply defines them at war, not genocide. Name a war that did not produce suffering. The UN source does not show that they are intentionally targeting a people, just that they are suffering as they target the elected Hamas government.
The point was you keep mentioning Hamas as an elected government even though that is laughable at this point, whereas the people of Israel seem to be pretty on board with genocide.
As for collective punishment, I think the entire population of Gaza has been suffering collective punishment for years, but certainly the moment Israel cut off food, power, and water they were engaging in collective punishment. Like really obviously, you’d have to be either really dumb or really dishonest to say otherwise.
I agree that Hamas should not be the government of Palestine and that the people would have difficulty removing them even if they wanted them gone. Who do you suggest should do it? I still do not understand what the legitimacy of the Israeli government has to do with the legitimacy of the Palestinian one.
Israel is at war right now. Certainly, the literal laws have changed to that of armed conflict. Making claims against it that do not cite international laws that they are signatory to are irrelevant. I don’t think understanding the legal status of the conflict is me being dumb or dishonest. It certainly shows that I may not be talking on the same level of education or experience. That’s the funny thing about the internet. You never really know exactly who or what you are talking to.
Hamas became the leadership in Gaza because Isreal funded religious extremism that became Hamas to oppose the PLO, part of which was the secular democratic socialist Fatah party led by Yassar Arafat.
Isreal is responsible for the violence and more violence will not end this conflict unless genocide is the goal.
So, that’s why relations immediately soured between them when the election was over? There is no possibility at all that what you are saying was the intended result or effect of Israel even if true.
This narrative is also completely fabricated to decrease Palistinian autonomy. Yasser Arafat’s death is largely considered to be what caused the instability. Your narrative only works to continue the narrative that the Palistinians should not have a sovereign state more than any distrust of Israel.
Based on those definitions, what Israel went through is considered genocide against them and multiple times including the recent attacks as they absolutely targeted Israeli civilians.
This is an overly broad definition and includes literally every war ever. Air strikes against seemingly military targets that end up not being military targets does not constitute genocide. Not by a long shot.
Your UN article simply states that there is suffering. Name a single war where that wasn’t the case. Is all war genocide? Your other articles simply define that they are at war in response to a massive terrorist attack. That is not genocide by this definition as it does not define the difference between a justified defensive war and a genocide.
Israel was at war the second they were attacked. War is not pretty. It is not genocide. You would be far better off scoping your argument outside of the confines of the current conflict as they were attacked by an elected organization by Palestine.
Based on those definitions, what Israel went through is considered genocide against them and multiple times including the recent attacks as they absolutely targeted Israeli civilians.
Yes.
This is an overly broad definition and includes literally every war ever.
Yes, that’s literally what the Geneva Conventions is about.
Air strikes against seemingly military targets that end up not being military targets does not constitute genocide. Not by a long shot.
One casualty, no. Twenty casualty, no, but that might be a war crime. Eight thousands casualty and rising, including hostages, that is a large group. It include targeting refugee camp, place of worship that house refugees, hospital, evacuation route, that is genocide.
Your UN article simply states that there is suffering. Name a single war where that wasn’t the case. Is all war genocide?
Terrible argument because that’s not how genocide is defined, 0 point for the mental gymnastic. Genocide is a motive, not all war is genocide. But yes, a lot of war tend to consist the element of genocide because of one stronger group trying to eliminate a weaker group, including Israel - Palestine conflict, where Israel has been oppressing Palestine for decades.
Your other articles simply define that they are at war in response to a massive terrorist attack.
Apply the context of the article to the definition of genocide.
That is not genocide by this definition as it does not define the difference between a justified defensive war and a genocide.
Genocide did not define whether it’s defensive nor offensive, nor the Geneva Conventions give a shit about how you think it should be. As it stand, being the defensive party does not give them any right to commit the atrocity they’re currently doing.
Israel was at war the second they were attacked. War is not pretty. It is not genocide.
Using your line of thinking, Hamas is not genocidal group because war is not pretty.
You would be far better off scoping your argument outside of the confines of the current conflict as they were attacked by an elected organization by Palestine.
And in return, they murdered 8000 non-combatant of the people that they successfully dehumanised, just like all the conflict they have with Palestine for decades.
Holocaust Denial Trope also detailed on what people do to deny the holocaust, but lets swap some letter:
Details of the Holocaust Palestinian Genocide Have Been Exaggerated
Witness Testimony is Fabricated or Inaccurate
Jews Hamas Invented the Holocaust Palestinian Genocide for Financial and Political Gain
The Holocaust Palestinian Genocide is a Zionist Hamas Political Tool
- Jews Palestinian are Responsible for Their Own Persecution
Wouldn’t be too far off from what is happening today.
The key difference to your last paragraph and the current situation is the trustworthiness of the narrative. Hamas has been shown time and time again to show complete disregard to the truth when they make claims of war crimes and civilians killed by Israel. I am sorry that you have any trust in them at all but you should validate your sources. Every militant struck is claimed to be a civilian. Every single one.
Are you saying of the 8700 death, all of them are combatant? Or are you saying it’s okay to kill 100 non-combatant to get to that 1 combatant? How many combatant were kill? Do you have any source to claim otherwise? Or is it all out from your own ass?
It’s funny when a genocide denial trying to argue about genocide denial trope, they fit right into it.
“Over a year later, after the news media had moved on, Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hammad enumerated Hamas fatalities at 600 to 700, a figure close to the Israeli estimate of 709 and about three times higher than the figure of 236 combatants provided by PCHR in 2009 and cited in the Goldstone Report.”
It is immensely consistent over time and they do it because it works.
One source told the Telegraph: “The numbers from Hamas cannot be trusted, although even one killed or injured child or innocent person is one too many.
“In the end it is not really about exact numbers but about the fact that undeniably innocent people are dying or being injured.”
Hamad’s figures closely match the Israeli estimate of 709 combatant fatalities and indicate that combatants comprised around half of the Palestinian fatalities in the time period of Dec. 27, 2008 through Jan. 18, 2009
Statistics about Palestinians who lost their lives during the military operations vary. Based on extensive field research, non-governmental organizations place the overall number of persons killed between 1,387 and 1,417.
Fact still remain about half of that casualty is civilian in that conflict. 700 civilian. Fact still remain that the disregard of Israel toward the civilian is always consistent in their assault.
Critics of CAMERA claim that it is an ‘extreme Israel advocacy group’ aligned with hawkish right-wing viewpoints. In general, they frequently report negatively on left-leaning media that does not fully support Israel, such as THE WASHINGTON POST BURIES THE TRUTH ABOUT PALESTINIAN TERRORISM, and this ROLLING STONE JUMPS ON PRO-TERRORIST BANDWAGON.
Sure, a media that mark all Palestinian as terrorist, we should listen to that.
Genocide: the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
See the blown up hospital, the blown up camp, the thousands of dead Palestinian civilians, the refugees bombed while trying to use the designated route out, or maybe just the leaked report with details of Israel’s plan to ethically cleanse Palestinians in Gaza.
Or, idk, just open your fucking eyes. You have to either be a fucking moron or intentionally ignorant, to both be aware of what’s happening over there and still think it’s not genocide.
Keep your head in the sand if you want. Fucking moron.
Edit: I’ll concede on the hospital. Anyone care to refute my other points, or maybe touch on today’s (11/1) bombing of the refugee camp?
This is exactly the shit people are talking about. Palestine blew up a gathering of people at that hospital, then everyone just takes Palestine’s word for it and yells at Israel for something Palestine did.
This is exactly the shit people are talking about. Palestine The terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad blew up a gathering of people at that hospital, then everyone just takes Palestine’s Hamas’ word for it and yells at Israel for something Palestine Palestinian Islamic Jihad did.
The elected government of Palestine, Hamas. Yes, that organization. Yet they still are targeting Hamas instead of intentionally enacting collective punishment.
The elected government of Palestine by the only election since 2006, which at that time the US President is George W. Bush, the one who started the horrible Iraq War, Hamas. Yes, that organization. Yet they still are targeting Hamas instead of and intentionally enacting collective punishment by cutting off water and electricity, cutting aid from international humanitarian organization, and displace home for the millions.
Israel is at war. Collective punishment is no longer a relevant claim. They have declared war on the government of Palestine, Hamas. They are no longer in competition and are no longer attempting to use these controls to prevent violence. There is nothing illegal or genocidal about it right now while they conduct literal war.
Cite from it then. You didn’t mention it before. Genocide is defined in far more than just the multiple Geneva conventions and so far no one has shown an understanding of it. Cite from it.
No, i already cite mine on another comment, YOU cite your source for your claim first. If you said it isn’t genocide, then cite your source to counter mine instead of talking from your ass, like genocide-denial always do.
The burden of proof is on the claim maker. Kindly prove that you are not a robot made by fairies in Mordor if you think the burden of proof is otherwise.
You want me to cite a source that says that you are allowed to conduct collateral damage and attack supply lines while at war? That burden of proof is still on you. Nothing in the Geneva Conventions forbids it.
What’s more likely, Israel is a nation state troll with multiple western security apparatuses in support or there’s at least a scheme of logic that people who actually look at the data can look at?
It’s funny because everyone I know that is liberal and left who work in national security break with the rest of their demographic and you see it in the Democratic party establishment as well. I’ve never seen a more clear line between experts who work on the space and those that do not.
See everyone else’s comments on how inaccurate your statements are. We are not the ones with our heads in the sand. Stop trusting Palestinian government sources. It’s literally Hamas. There’s a reason that they beat the Israelis to the narrative. They do not validate their information. They say whatever makes Israel look bad, no matter what the truth is.
They did not say they would not strike in the South and if you look at the spread of the strokes it is several orders of magnitude in the North. Nowhere in that article does it say where they were told to go in the south because they weren’t told a specific location and they have been significantly removed from the bloodshed. Additionally, they gave been removed from any ability to actually validate independently that what was struck was in fact not civilians so you are again taking Hamas at their word.
Bombing a building filled with civilians just because some arsehole who help do (or did) a terrible thing is hiding in there certainly sounds like collective punishment …
Hiding amongst your own civilians when you just killed a bunch of Jewish civilians could also be considered collective punishment. They are targeting the enemy. The enemy is commiting a war crime. If Israel intentionally targeted civilians not around the enemy because they elected Hamas as their government this enabling state sponsors terrorism, it would be considered collective punishment.
If Israel intentionally targeted civilians not around the enemy because they elected Hamas as their government this enabling state sponsors terrorism, it would be considered collective punishment.
Israel is also attacking the West Bank, where there is no Hamas.
Hiding amongst your own civilians
I have never understood this argument of terrorists “hiding” amongst civilians. Terrorists are people, that live in residential buildings, that pray in temples, and that go to hospitals when they are injured or ill.
My country, Spain, had a huge problem between the 1970s and the 2010s with the terrorist group ETA. But nobody was ever so fucking psycho as to suggest bombing the places in the Basque country were the terrorists lived. There are other ways of fighting against terrorism that don’t include the killing of civilians.
They are targeting the enemy.
No. They are targeting civilian areas where there are maybe some enemies.
I am sure you would not feel the same way about inaction if your family were being held at gunpoint because of their beliefs. I am not sure you are arguing in good faith if you do not think that terrorists who killed thousands of people are legitimate targets. Extremely few people would agree with you and you are literally the first I have ever met. (Including many academics who are very pro-Palestine and anti-West)
Yes actually and Israel’s actions so far have resulted in the capture of enough militants for a swap. Not that you could possibly acknowledge that being forced to swap militants for civilians is in any way a good look for the elected government of Palestine.
You know what’s funny about genocide denial rhetoric? It is exactly the same thing as the truth when there is no genocide. I trust Israel’s rhetoric infinitely more having seen the evidence myself.
Not one militant has been killed by Israel according to Hamas. They were all civilians. I don’t just mean in the current conflict but in the last 17 years. Find me one single example that wasn’t a high-profile commander that they could not explain away and then we can talk. When your entire army is made up of what you claim is civilians, genocide is an easy claim to make but a hard one to prove to those dying by your hand.
I think I will be just fine in 20 years and maybe we will actually have a Palestinian sovereign state when they do not have a literal terrorist organization as its elected government.
Do you believe UN reports about the “Hamas aligned side”? Or is that just some big conspiracy?
And by your own words: “Deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime.” “Do you remember that refugee camp they hit yesterday?” I’ll even concede and say sure, let’s assume there were Hamas terrorists hiding in the refugee camp. Let’s also assume there was terrorist-supporting infrastructure in the refugee camp. Guess what though. IT WAS STILL A FUCKING REFUGEE CAMP!
Let that sink in extra slow through your thick skull. Read through several times if you must. They knew there were innocent civilians in a refugee camp. They also suspected terrorists in said refugee camp. If you think the best and only option was to bomb that refugee camp, you’re wrong and a monster. Or is it that you’re simply a racist that thinks that every Palestinian is a terrorist simply for existing on the wrong “side”?
Let’s say we find out that there’s some terrorists hiding out in your city. Is the only solution to bomb the city? Yourself, your family, and your friends included? Let’s say we narrow it down to terrorists hiding on your block. What’s your solution? How much “collateral damage” (innocent civilian deaths) is acceptable to root out the terrorism that exists in your home town?
Edit: I would like to add that yes, this is distracting from the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I would also like to add that I recognize that I do not know nearly enough about this conflict to speak with authority on the subject. What I do know enough about though is that not every Palestinian is involved with nor supports Hamas. And not every Israeli is involved with nor supports the IDF. There are many Innocent people that have died, and are continuing to die from both sides of this conflict. And every one of those deaths is a tragedy. I wholeheartedly condemn Hamas’ killings of innocent civilians, and I wholeheartedly condemn Israel’s killings of innocent civilians. Both sides fucking suck and the people that are truly paying the price are the innocent people dying and losing loved ones. I don’t know what the answer is, or even if there is a “right answer”. Maybe a special ground operation would have minimized loss of life? I don’t know. What I definitely do know is that I will never be okay with the deaths of innocent people.
You mean the refugee camp that has been there so long there are multistory buildings and voting residents? Just because it is labeled as a refugee camp does not mean it functions as such. Is it worse than Hamas hiding in a regular residential area? If so, you should not be demonizing the Israeli military but instead Hamas who is using it for military purposes. Go look at what was labeled as a refugee camp and tell me that it was not an area with permanent structures. Striking legitimate targets in civilian areas is ethical, full stop. You cannot provide a legal argument otherwise and being unwilling to strike targets in those areas encourages militaries to use civilian shields further endangering civilians.
I have been involved in targeting within the conduct of warfare before. Yes, this is how it is done by the best armies on earth. It is infinitely better than indiscriminate artillery fire that preceded directed munitions. Yes, the prior solution was to level entire sections of the city in prior wars. This is not abhorrent within the context of military conflict.
I highly encourage you to look into the history of targeting approaches and see which is the more ethical approach. If you would like to compare it to other more recent conflicts with less sophisticated weapons, please look into the following.
Let me be completely clear. The above examples of absolute depravity are legal and ethical within armed conflict. Israel has declared war on the government of the West Bank, Hamas. They did so in reaction to a horrific terrorist attack against unarmed civilians planned and executed by real flesh and blood people and not as a result of mistaken intelligence. Israel has every right to absolutely level the West Bank as they fight to take it block for block within the laws of armed warfare. You may not like it but they do. It is not genocide. It is not a war crime. It is just simply war. It is simultaneously much worse for Palestine and much safer for Israel and that should be remembered that they are not choosing to take that approach.
They have lessened their approach to potentially minimize civilian casualties. They did not have to do this. You actively discourage them from doing this when you demonize them anyway. Why bother giving the enemy time to prepare and kill more of your forces if it does not further you towards your political goals? There is a reason why the coalition came out on the better end of the conflict in Syria instead of Russia/Assad’s government. The coalition was not indiscriminate in their targeting and Russia was.
Furthermore, every chance that they have given the Palestinian people to better their position is used as leverage to wage more war against Israel. Without the removal of Hamas, they will continue to leverage their position to conduct further attacks against Israel because they have done it continuously and increasingly since 2006. I do not envy the position they are in but I certainly understand it. It should be remembered that Israel plays by the laws of war and Hamas does not.
I too am not okay with the deaths of innocent people which is why Israel is stopping with these half-assed solutions and is going in to remove Hamas. This is a limited ground operation even though they have declared war. You are using these terms that you do not even understand. They have never claimed otherwise as an organization and have remained consistent with that in their decision-making. When they get a system in charge there that can be trusted to not literally use every resource they have to kill innocent Israelis, they can open back up the movement corridors and start working towards autonomy again like they were in 2003. I do not see a fully sovereign Palestinian state until then which I actually do believe Israel wants. They just don’t want one led by literal terrorists. A fully sovereign and stable Palestinian state is the only lasting peace that can end the bloodshed. Simply declaring Hamas full power and autonomy is a quick way to enable the spread of violence into a much wider and more deadly conflict.
Wow. Just… wow. I’m not going to respond to everything because frankly, I don’t feel like debating this and worse yet, you’re absolutely right that I don’t fully understand the situation, the rules of engagement, the legal/militaristic terms, etc. But I do have a few things I’d like to say, not that I think it will make a lick of difference for you.
First and foremost is that just because something is legally allowed, whether it’s in war or in peace, does not make it morally okay. I recognize that you seem to be thinking of this from a purely militaristic point of view. I’ve never tried to argue that they’re breaking international law or anything like that. I am fighting this from the perspective of someone with half a shred of empathy, but it seems you’ve come unarmed.
As far as the refugee camp goes, it only counts if civilians seek refuge on some flat unbuilt land and pitch tents? If that were the case I can all but guarantee you would still excuse it so what difference does it make? Again, arguing from the perspective of an empathetic person, to me a refugee camp is anywhere that people seek refuge. I don’t care about legal definitions or military rules of engagement, I care about people. But it apparently wouldn’t matter if civilians were seeking refuge in tents in the middle of nowhere, as long as “Intel suggests” Hamas activity in the newly erected campground you’d justify the bombing the exact same by your logic.
As far as leveling entire sections of the city, I suggest looking for the publicly released satellite images of Gaza from before and after this most recent conflict. Not that it matters to you because “this is not abhorrent within the context of military conflict.” But, you can probably guess from my first points that I couldn’t give two flying fucks about what is seen as okay in “the context of military conflict”. It’s a tragedy and should be abhorrent in any fucking context. The loss of life alone is terrible enough, not to mention the damage to the Earth when all of that has to be rebuilt. Justifying this in any way shape or form is nothing less than evil. Full stop.
Time and conflicts have proven time and time again that killing innocent people in the name of fighting terrorism breeds terrorists. If you critically think for a moment (and based on your militaristic view I’m not sure you can) it only makes sense. If you kill someone’s family, if you take away all they have to live for, they have no further reason not to seek revenge. But I guess that doesn’t matter because it seems like you’re ok justifying what amounts to an endless game of whack-a-mole; you smack one down and wait for the next to pop up.
Once more I ask you to try to put yourself in their shoes. Play devil’s advocate with yourself for a while. You never did tell me what you think should be done about the terrorists in your home town. If you live in an urbanized area they almost certainly exist. Do your precious rules of engagement still apply? And more importantly, outside the context of the almighty law, are you okay with it? Or would you feel upset (or anything really) if the military leveled your loved ones’ block in the name of fighting terrorism? Would you still be happy if they bombed your innocent family because “Justice was served”?
The fully sovereign Palestinian state you’re referring to should be in neighboring Egypt according to Israel if the articles I saw last night are to be believed. I suppose passing what you seem to view as unwanted pests off on the neighbor is a solution though?
Or perhaps it’d be more accurate to say that you label all Palestinians as “the enemy” that you shouldn’t give preparation time to unless it furthers your political goals? Ugh just typing that makes me physically ill. Fuck political goals. These aren’t some theoretical unknown life forms we’re talking about. These are living, breathing people getting caught in the crossfire. These are kids that belong in school, families, people that are trying to go about their day and greet their family at the end of it. They and myself don’t give a rats ass about these made up political goals.
From the bottom of my heart, and please take this to the black hole where your heart should be: Fuck you and the horse you rode in on for justifying unnecessary loss of life because it lines up better with political goals.
Finally, again I reiterate that I am not an authority on this or any military conflict. I am apparently more of an authority on empathy though, so take that for what it’s worth.
I also reiterate that all attacks by Hamas that have taken unnecessary innocent lives is nothing short of tragedy. Absolutely evil.
I also also reiterate that all attacks by Israel that have taken unnecessary innocent lives is nothing short of tragedy. Absolutely evil.
ESH. Politics? Fucking suck. Military? Fucking suck. Anyone and everyone that is okay with innocent people of any nation, culture, skin color, etc. dying? You fucking suck worst of all for enabling all the other shit that fucking sucks. If I had a better mind for politics I’d probably ask you kindly to go find a ditch and swallow a tidepod. But that’s not who I am. I love you for the human you all are and view your lives as sacred. But if you justify the deaths of innocent people in the name of political goals, would you kindly go choke on a lifesaver for a bit.
Just because you think something is morally wrong, does not mean you understand the full context. What is legal matters because they are the rules by which we play and they set expectations and consequences. Just because something is illegal does not make it wrong but ignorance of the law doesn’t help your argument.
The ends don’t always justify the means but sometimes they do of it means less suffering.
My claim is that you don’t understand the situation and take the claims of religiously motivated murderers at face value. Your claim is that my side are genocidal maniacs who just want them to die. My claims have evidence and I have personally seen them. You base yours on what?
Additionally, my side categorically follows the laws of war, regardless of the narrative.
War is politics. That’s been defined since the 1800s by Clausewitz. Your failure to understand that is not anyone’s problem but your own. I’d like for war to not exist but it does and it would be nice if people would not be what are known as useful idiots in the western geological community.
You’re making several assumptions that I don’t think I’ve said or even alluded to. I don’t think I’ve mentioned religion or motivation at all. All I’ve been trying to say is I disagree with the death of innocent people. I’ve agreed with you 100% that I do not have a good grasp of the situation and frankly I don’t think you or most people do have a full grasp of the situation. You probably know more than me, good job. I still disagree with any person, country, military, religion, etc. taking the lives of innocent people. I recognize that sometimes it can mean fewer deaths in the long run, but seeing as I don’t have absolute knowledge of the situation it’s not my call to make. I’m not arguing whether one side is doing more harm than the other. I’m not arguing whether one side is more evil, or what their reason for killing is. I’m arguing that innocent people dying sucks. This will be my last reply to you/this thread because I don’t have anything else to say. Killing innocent people should be avoided wherever possible because innocent people dying sucks. I’m not sure how that’s such a hard concept to grasp or why anyone would argue that killing innocent people is good but evil does exist in this world and it sucks.
Have a wonderful day and may you achieve any and all of your non-evil dreams.
Probably the same thing as all other forms of refugees, building walls to block them and detention centres to torture those that manage to get passed as a deterrent for others to try
No, there were credible academic studies back in 2012 that explained the Arabs Spring revolts by climate change, leaving countryside communities unable to sustain their mode of life.
The report, “Today or Tomorrow, They Should Be Brought Before Justice” – Rape, Sexual Slavery, Extra-Judicial Executions and Pillage by Eritrean Forces in Tigray, documents how EDF soldiers, allied to the Ethiopian federal government, were responsible for rape and sexual slavery, extra-judicial executions, and pillage. Amnesty International interviewed witnesses, survivors and family members, who testified about the extra-judicial execution of at least 20 civilians, primarily men, by the EDF in Mariam Shewito district between 25 October and 1 November 2022.
In addition, a social worker who documented extra-judicial executions in the district provided a list of more than 100 names of people who they said had been extra-judicially executed within this period, although Amnesty International was not able to independently corroborate all these cases remotely. For nearly three months after the signing of the CoHA, EDF soldiers raped and sexually enslaved women, and extra-judicially executed 24 civilians in Kokob Tsibah district.
“Despite the signing of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement, atrocities against civilians in Tigray continued with Eritrean soldiers subjecting women to horrific abuse including rape, gang rape and sexual enslavement, while civilian men were extrajudicially executed,” said Tigere Chagutah, Amnesty International’s Regional Director for East and Southern Africa
At the time these crimes were committed, the conflict in northern Ethiopia, including the Tigray region, was a non-international armed conflict governed by international humanitarian law which, among other things, seeks to protect civilians and fighters who have ceased to take part in hostilities. The serious violations documented in this report amount to war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity.
Survivors of sexual violence and witnesses to killings told Amnesty International they identified perpetrators through their camouflage, the Tigrigna dialect the soldiers spoke, and the type of interrogation questions they asked. Kokob Tsibah and Mariam Shewito are near the Eritrean border, and survivors say they could easily identify Eritrean soldiers...
Eritrean soldiers stationed in Mariam Shewito and Kokob Tsibah districts engaged in intentional killings of civilians, mostly men, while conducting house-to-house searches of houses and residences, allegedly in pursuit of members of the Tigrayan forces and their supporters. Multiple interviews supported claims that victims of extra-judicial executions were civilians. Given that these acts were committed in a non-international armed conflict, such executions amount to the war crime of murder...
Amnesty International is calling for the mandate of the International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia (ICHREE) to be renewed during the upcoming UN Human Rights Council’s 54th session starting on 11 September 2023.
Amnesty International is also calling on the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights to rescind its decision to terminate the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry on the Situation in the Tigray Region of the Federal Republic of Ethiopia established in May 2021. In June 2023, the mandate was terminated before the Commission of Inquiry had produced a final report.
Hence the tik tok ban. Authoritarian states need to control the war narrative more than anything else. If they are unable to manufacture consent for war, then they are forced to use domestic repression via increased police interventions on college campuses etc.
amnesty.org
Hot